Vietnam War Propaganda

To the elites of any society that has existed in history, the anger and ire of the masses has always been a terrifying concept to ponder. From the Helot class of Sparta, peasant revolts in China, labor unions in England, and slave revolts in America, it has always been the prerogative for those in power to make sure any thoughts of challenge to the status quo was quickly put to rest. This view of those in power has remained unchanged, but the mechanisms used to achieve control and stability have adapted and evolved. Brute force alone is not enough, it was realized shortly after the American Civil War that control of thoughts and debate was a much more valuable tool in the modern age. To fully understand why and how the propaganda and public …show more content…
In the major media, the New York Times or CBS or whatever -- in fact, all across the spectrum except at the very far-out periphery which reaches almost no one -- in the major media which reach the overwhelming majority of the population, there was a lively debate. It was between people called "doves" and people called "hawks". The people called hawks said, "If we keep at it we can win." The people called doves said, "Even if we keep at it we probably can't win, and besides, it would probably be too costly for us, and besides maybe we're killing too many people," something like that. Both sides, the doves and the hawks, agreed on something: we have a right to carry out aggression against South Vietnam. In fact, they didn't even admit that it was taking place. They called it the "defense" of South Vietnam, using "defense" for "aggression" in the standard Orwellian manner. We were in fact attacking South Vietnam, just as much as the Russians are attacking Afghanistan. Like them, we first established a government that invited us in, and until we found one we had to overturn government after government. Finally we got one that invited us in, after we'd been there for years, attacking the countryside and the population. That's aggression. Nobody thought it was wrong, or rather, anyone who thought that was wrong was not admitted to the discussion. If you're a dove, you're in favor of aggression, if you're a hawk you're in favor of aggression. The debate between the hawks and the doves, then, is purely tactical: "Can we get away with it? Is it too bloody or too costly?" All basically irrelevant.”